Just pointing out something I recently learned that others may not be aware of -- most bottled water also has fluoride added. iirc water labeled as "distilled" cannot contain additives (or at least fluoride), but most of the "spring water" and other variants you'll find at the store do have those additives.
No. Unless you want the US added to the list of countries where the advice to tourists is "Don't drink the water".
Water additives are proven to improve the health of the populace. There are corner cases, and we can debate appropriate levels, but an outright ban of all additives is regressive.
There seems to be a lot of regressive attitudes going around these days. See: Measles outbreak.
Tourists don't stay long enough for the presence or absence of fluoride in water to matter to them. Pathogen- and contaminant-free water are the only priority for them. Stories like Flint would probably do more to scare tourists about US tap water.
water additives are used to remove bad things in the water. so in effect the additives exist to actually move the water qualify closer to the "default", not "enhance" it. if tap water was literally h20 and nothing else the additives would be unnecessary, no?
as far as measles go, people have the right to not get vaccinated if they choose - it's dumb, though and others have the right to not let them participate in things since they're not vaccinated, too. it's not really analogous to the fluoride thing at all anyway.
Default water, lol. What an incredibly, terribly, dumb argument. There is no such thing as "Default Water" - it neither exists in nature, nor in man-made systems. Good luck with that. We can - and should - modify our our systems in the interests of public health. Nothing comes without corner cases which impact people like you - them's the breaks. Life isn't fair, but we are engineering a society for the benefit of almost everyone in it.
People can choose not to drink flouridated tap water if they want - building a well isn't that expensive, although you will probably need a treatment system because of the naturally occurring stuff (minerals, hydrogen sulphide, possibly excess flouride and other stuff).
"Freedom isn't free", as they like to say. You may have to invest in your "freedom" to drink the water you want to drink. You will have to pay the price of your kids not getting vaccinated - they may not be able to go to public schools.
There are much bigger hills worth dying on (see: Flint, MI). Leave the wildly successful public health programs alone.
> People can choose not to drink flouridated tap water if they want - building a well isn't that expensive, although you will probably need a treatment system because of the naturally occurring stuff (minerals, hydrogen sulphide, possibly excess flouride and other stuff).
that's hilarious because brushing your teeth is more effective, and cheaper than adding fluoride to water. I'm sure people in Manhattan will really get on building those wells.
at the end of the day there's not a single paper that actually says ingesting fluoride is water. they all correlate incidental fluoride contact on the teeth, due to it being in the water.
fact is, brushing your teeth is more effective and has no downsides. ingesting fluoride is bad and is discouraged literally not only by all dentists, but this fact is present on all toothpaste in the usa.
Despite people knowing about the effectiveness of brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste, there are benefits (less cavities in young people) to having a certain level of fluoride in the water. Presumably, not everyone is good at brushing their teeth, yet we can improve dental health by adding in some fluoride in those areas that have low or no fluoride naturally in their water supply.
That sounds like a child's argument - "it's not fair!".
It's basic public health logic - is it a net benefit to the population to add fluoride to the water supply and at a suitable price point or is there a more effective method to achieve the desired outcome?
Meanwhile, we have toxic tyre pollution being released into the very air that we breathe which has no known benefit to the population's health and has been shown to lead to heart/lung problems and early deaths. Is that fair?
> is it a net benefit to the population to add fluoride to the water supply and at a suitable price point or is there a more effective method to achieve the desired outcome
What if I don't care about that outcome if it means my water supply is tainted with a chemical I have no desire to ingest? Is it incomprehensible to you that somebody may not be particularly concerned with a statistical decrease in cavities for people that can't be bothered to brush their teeth if it means being force-fed a potential neurotoxin?
I could as easily respond that if you don't care about my fundamental freedoms then I don't care what you think. That said, I personally find the concern about fluoride overblown.
"Public health" isn't an excuse to ignore individual rights. It's a justification for investment and outreach, nothing more. The alternative rapidly gives way to a dystopian nanny state.
I can't see how anybody's freedom is infringed by adding fluoride to public water in those areas where it is lacking. What specific freedom are you talking about?
I can see the argument about freedom vs public health in things like tobacco usage, but there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted (e.g. minimum age). Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.
There's a world of difference between a dystopian nanny state and just ignoring public health issues that would typically affect the poorer segments of society.
To be honest, it seems like a disingenuous argument that anti-fluoride people make about it infringing their freedom when they don't seem concerned about removing fluoride from those supplies that naturally have higher levels.
You seem more like you're performing for an audience then engaging in good faith. You're also making faulty assumptions - I generally support the addition of fluoride to pubic drinking water systems despite the fact that I can sympathize with those who object to it.
My comment about freedoms was not in reference to fluoride. It was in response to your blanket dismissal of anyone who doesn't "care about public health" whatever that's supposed to mean. "Public health" as you're using the term appears to translate to "it's for your own good". Then your earlier statement reads as a blanket justification to run roughshod over other's freedoms while mocking them for objecting.
Your logic can be summarized as X is often harmful to people who choose to do it therefore restricting voluntary participation in X does not infringe freedoms in an objectionable manner. Hopefully you can see the absurdity when it's laid out like that.
> there's very strong data that tobacco is carcinogenic and so it's hardly a dystopian nanny state for tobacco to be restricted
The argument isn't "specific thing makes this a dystopian nanny state" it's "particular philosophy rapidly leads to a dystopian nanny state". They're quite different claims.
Children aren't generally viewed as having full freedoms so the associated age restrictions don't seem particularly relevant to this conversation. That said "public health" is hardly the only possible justification for restricting tobacco sales to minors.
> Similarly, it hardly infringes freedom if there's minimum standards for food hygiene even though you may personally enjoy dysentry, food poisoning etc.
The imposition of food hygiene standards generally serves to bring stability and security to the market by regulating something that end consumers can't easily judge for themselves but which nonetheless can harm them. Notice that restaurants generally remain free to serve undercooked items to customers but they must go out of their way to make the customer aware of this fact. Despite your dismissive misrepresentation of my views I do in fact view the restrictions on raw milk as a fairly severe violation of freedoms despite the fact that I have no personal interest in consuming it.
> There's a world of difference between a dystopian nanny state and just ignoring public health issues that would typically affect the poorer segments of society.
I hope you're having fun knocking down these strawmen. Investment and outreach isn't ignoring.
> it seems like a disingenuous argument that anti-fluoride people make about it infringing their freedom when they don't seem concerned about removing fluoride from those supplies that naturally have higher levels.
You finally managed to point out something interesting. So a question. If non-potable water is treated and a byproduct is left behind is that a problem? Note that in this hypothetical there was no intent other than accomplishing the goal (ie making the water potable) at a reasonable price point. Are you entitled to water of a specific purity level, or merely potable water, or something else entirely?
Now what if the byproduct was left behind intentionally (ie the option to remove it existed and was trivial) but it was nonetheless a byproduct of a particular treatment program and treatment of some sort was genuinely necessary?
I think there is a fundamental difference between intentionally introducing something and failing to remove something, and the motivations matter because they can set precedent for future actions.
You seem a bit confused with your little rant there (there's so many wrong-minded ideas that I can't be bothered to explain why they're wrong) and you haven't answered my clear question:
> I can't see how anybody's freedom is infringed by adding fluoride to public water in those areas where it is lacking. What specific freedom are you talking about?
More bad faith talking points - which have been addressed by other commenters in other sub-threads responding to you. (I am able to read those, you know)
This is a dead horse. You're in the wrong. Please do not engage with me any more.
they haven't though. feel free to post a paper showing that fluoride ingestion is good for you. there's no dispute that fluoride contact on the teeth is good.
there are plenty of papers showing that *ingestion* may be bad for you and results in lower IQ. feel free to research.
If Biden had made these policies I would have been pro-Biden policy guy then.
> I see you're taking a play from the right-wing playbook
Do you actually believe this is a thing?
I figured the other commenter voiced my point of view well enough. I was just curious if you were aware of how you come off. I always wonder if people who are abrasive on the internet are like that in real life.
If we had universal health care and guaranteed basic income, then I might be inclined to agree with you.
Fluoride in drinking water is supposed to be a cost-effective way to prevent a lot of suffering from those who cannot afford to take care of their teeth, for example, children in poor families.
I grew up in an area with fluoride in the water and most of my peers had no cavities until we had moved away and were in our late twenties.
salt and milk don't come out of your tap, though. would you agree with governments building giant towers everywhere resulting in humidifying the air with chemically infused mists (which are said to be beneficial)?
after all, if you prefer the current air, you can wear a breathing mask attached to a tank with your air of choice.
it's crazy to me that people can see what harm the government can do in 2025 and still think the government knows best.
It's not about thinking the government knows best it's about thinking the research knows best. Fluoride in water is widely considered one of the largest public health victories and study after study finds it largely safe and worth the potential trade offs.
The thing that's so wild about being anti fluoride is it's been going on for so long, it's possible your grandparents have never drank unfluoridated water at least in their adult lives, and at such scale that even if everything was a coordinated lie there would be very clear numbers showing problems.
> if everything was a coordinated lie there would be very clear numbers showing problems
that's not how science works though. people in the western hemisphere are becoming more unhealthy, and there is definitely not a consensus that fluoridated water is good. there are plenty of papers showing both conclusions.
at the end of the day though, there's actually no benefit to fluoride ingestion. no paper has shown this. what they do show though, is that when you add it to the water people have better tooth health, because the fluoride touches your teeth. however brushing your teeth is even more effective.
so can I assume that if there was research that breathing some chemically infused mist is good for you, you'd support the government in creating towers to spray this mist across the country? after all in this premise the research says it's good.
Sure why wouldn’t I? We do it already with things that aren’t healthy all the time. If we could, let’s say alleviate all allergies, with only very minor impacts to the environment or human health why wouldn’t we.
That being said it’s a false equalavincy. You can’t avoid the air you can avoid the public water supply.
> You can’t avoid the air you can avoid the public water supply.
You can't though in practice. If you live in urban area for example. It's functionally equivalent. If you say well, I could say gas mask with tank. If you say bottled water, I could say respirator, etc.
Ok fair. Let’s turn it around then. Why wouldn’t you want something which drastically reduces allergies and is provably safe to humans and the environment? Is there any level of proof you’d be willing to accept? Do you just fundamentally believe that societal benefits aren’t worth it if they are impossible to opt out of? Or maybe you don’t see the societal benefits?
Because "forcing it" makes sure it actually gets done and people get the benefit.
The thing about safety nets is they actually have to be, you know, safety nets. If you can just avoid them then they don't provide any safety. Look at SS. If we just get rid of SS, then we're fucked. It's true other investments exist and are better. But that's not the whole story. People won't invest, so we have to force them. Otherwise, they suffer, and we suffer, too, because ultimately we don't want dead geriatric bodies piling up on the streets.
The idea of fluoridated water is it's a safety net. So even the poorest, most mentally-ill among us have a baseline guarantee of dental health. And, for that purpose, it's extremely effective.
What about things which are only beneficial, or extra beneficial, at a population level? I don’t know if that’s true about fluoride but other comments talk about vaccines and it’s true there. Both disease eradication and herd immunity require that most everyone do something. Is there any case to you where it becomes worth it to mandate anything?
I do not see how this matters at all. The government regulates it, how it gets to your house makes little difference. Also, I don’t pay “the government” for my water/electric/etc, I pay companies which makes your argument even more confusing, it all comes down to regulations.
the default water people consume comes from the tap. you don't see how it's different? it's not like people buy water of their choice and hook it up to their plumbing.
Okay. But that's not at all present in the post I responded to.
This is government action we are discussing right now. The government can't know best when it puts fluoride in the water but it can know best when it bans municipalities from doing so?
> This is government action we are discussing right now. The government can't know best when it puts fluoride in the water but it can know best when it bans municipalities from doing so?
I don't agree with the ban. people should be about to vote on this.
